On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:08:43AM +0900, glen lee wrote:
>
>
> On 2015년 10월 25일 10:29, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 02:28:18PM +0900, Glen Lee wrote:
> >>Use netdev private member wilc instead of g_linux_wlan and Change argument wilc
> >>with dev in the function request_threaded_irq to pass back to handler
> >>the function isr_uh_routine.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Glen Lee <glen.lee@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>---
> >> drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c | 9 +++++++--
> >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c
> >>index b036b96..7b0614d 100644
> >>--- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c
> >>+++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c
> >>@@ -229,10 +229,15 @@ static int dev_state_ev_handler(struct notifier_block *this, unsigned long event
> >> #if (defined WILC_SPI) || (defined WILC_SDIO_IRQ_GPIO)
> >> static irqreturn_t isr_uh_routine(int irq, void *user_data)
> >> {
> >>+ perInterface_wlan_t *nic;
> >>+ struct wilc *wl;
> >>+
> >>+ nic = netdev_priv(usedata);
> >This patch breaks the build, which means you didn't even test build the
> >series :(
>
> Hi greg,
>
> I built every patches I'v posted and also there is no build error for this patch.
I don't believe you, just look at the lines, it's obviously incorrect.
> Would you please reconsider this patch again?
Why would I ever accept a patch that is obviously wrong? I would be a
horrible subsystem maintainer, and you would not want me to merge an
obviously broken patch from someone else into this driver, breaking it,
right?
I have no idea why you would expect me to ever accept this patch as-is.
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
